Talk:List of destroyed heritage

Destruction of cultural heritage
I propose moving this list to Destruction of cultural heritage (currently a redirect to Cultural genocide), and adding more content so as to introduce the reader to destruction of heritage in general (ie. causes, motives etc). The by country list could be split into separate articles, for example Destruction of cultural heritage in Syria or Destruction of cultural heritage in Spain (this one can be expanded/modified from List of missing monuments in Spain). When I have time, I'd be happy to write Destruction of cultural heritage in Malta, and would try to help out in the Iraq/Syria articles. If there are separate articles, we can have a more comprehensive coverage of the destruction in a particular country. The idea is to include much more examples of destruction of cultural heritage than there are in the present article, including examples from antiquity to the medieval/early modern periods (eg. the destruction of six out of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World), which are not covered in the article.

Some sources which might be useful:
 * Relative Values: The Need to Preserve our Historic Architecture from Acts of Cultural Vandalism - HubPages
 * Destruction of Cultural Heritage - Global Policy Forum
 * Destroying cultural heritage: more than just material damage - British Council
 * The Destruction of Cultural Heritage Should be a War Crime - The Wall Street Journal

This might be of interest to members of WikiProject Historic sites. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This makes sense. I've never encountered the nomenclature "destroyed heritage", and your proposal mmets with WP:NATURALDIS and WP:NDESC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 3 April 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. A lot of interesting discussion below, that can be used as a springboard for making the list more rigorous, but I don't see any consensus to change its status right now. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

List of destroyed heritage → Destruction of cultural heritage – more common nomenclature, it could be developed from a list into a substantial article. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I started this article and I am OK with the renaming, and creating subarticles by country in the future. Regards. emijrp (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Major problem No. 1 with this proposal: the Destruction of cultural heritage article is a redirect to Cultural genocide. I think that what constitutes the 'destruction of cultural heritage' needs to be more clearly defined according to WP:RS. At the moment, it's a WP:OR list that reads more like WP:COATRACK than an encyclopaedic article/list with prominence given to whatever any given editor wants to feature.


 * No. 2: How to proscribe entries from being blatantly WP:POV. Just looking at the 'Ukraine' section, I see a bizarre emphasis on the 'destruction' of communist era statues as being 'destroyed heritage'... yet no mention of the ancient buildings and monuments of Khreshchatyk street in Kiev having been all but destroyed by the Bolsheviks, then finally virtually obliterated by the German and the majority of the destruction being attributable to undermining by Soviet forces during WWII... and that's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of Soviet devastation of physical monuments.


 * Ultimately, until what this list is and isn't is determined, it's going to remain a grab-bag of anything anyone wants to bring to the table. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The list is far from complete as it currently stands (and it can never be complete). The reason why I propose to move the list and create sub-articles by country is to make it easier to include more examples, ie. the article Destruction of cultural heritage in Ukraine would include both the destruction of buildings in Khreshchatyk, as well as the destruction of communist statues.
 * I view destruction of cultural heritage as the destruction (deliberate or otherwise) of:
 * buildings which have historical and/or architectural importance (eg. Temple of Bel, Auberge d'Auvergne, Dharahara)
 * buildings which might not be that old but have significant cultural and/or architectural importance (eg. Armenian Genocide Memorial Church, Der Zor)
 * any monuments, ancient or modern (eg. Monumental Arch of Palmyra, Ponsonby's Column)
 * any archaeological sites or ancient monuments (eg. Nohmul, Hatra, Palmyra)
 * The above complies with UNESCO's definition of cultural heritage, which includes "monuments, archaeological sites, and so on". Destruction of art could also be included, but that is already covered in a separate article. Best regards, Xwejnusgozo (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I share User:Iryna Harpy's concerns. —  AjaxSmack   01:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What you've actually expressed here, Xwejnusgozo, is your WP:PPOV definition. The UNESCO definition is extremely broad, yet their own evaluations of what constitute 'World Heritage' sites are proscribed and examined over years before decisions are made as to the validity of the application for World Heritage status. If you are using UNESCO as a reference point, then the lists must adhere to what is recognised by UNESCO alone, full stop. The reason I also brought up the issue of the namespace you wish to use is that it redirects to Cultural genocide... for good reason. Cultural genocide is an actual field of academic studies, and much of what is to be found in this list steps on the toes of that field of research. The 'destruction' of 'heritage' (how is that actually defined) happens within a context. Unless such physical, inanimate objects are destroyed by a natural disaster, creating our own definitions contravenes WP:NOR. Every article must have a reliably sourced context. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is a list article, not a topic article. Perhaps a topic article can be created, but this is not it -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * IP 70.51.46.39, please read WP:NOTESAL. More to the point, WP:CCPOL is at the core of any list. That the list is verifiable is peripheral to reliable sources tying the contention of the list WP:TITLE and content together. As it stands, I've never encountered any RS that discuss 'Destroyed heritage' without any form of context for what for is being destroyed. Does that mean that, because there's an article in a local paper on the remnants of an abandoned chicken coup that's been standing on a vacant lot since 1892 being blown over in a storm, and that locals are sad about it because it's been there for as long as they can remember, that I can add it to this list because I have a source for it? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Destruction of chicken coop is not the same as the destruction of historic buildings, monuments, churches, temples, mosques etc. Should the list be limited to include only UNESCO World Heritage Sites? By the way, if what buildings/monuments are regarded as heritage and which aren't is subjective, the same argument should apply to Category:Landmarks. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course the destruction of the chicken coop isn't the same, nor would I consider it desirable to proscribe this to being a UNESCO-based list. What I'm trying to convey is that 'destruction' and 'cultural' are emotionally charged concepts, meaning that we need at least a couple of reliably sourced, academically recognised definitions in order that this list isn't turned into a WP:COATRACK or a massive list of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As for the 'Landmarks' category, it has always been slightly problematic as to whether something was indeed considered a landmark, but 'landmark' is a neutral term so it doesn't throw up the same linguistically loaded problems.


 * The links you've provided above the RfC do present a starting point, but they would need to be integrated into the lead before moving the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I added a short lead, I'll try to make further improvements when I have time. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * When I started this article, I thought about monuments (as in Wiki Loves Monuments) that were damaged or destroyed, by natural or human causes. I think that your lead is helpful in that way (splitting in movable [art] and non-movable [monuments]). Almost every country in the world has heritage registers and laws against destruction of the heritage, so any object registered as a "heritage property" which is damaged/destroyed, is an example of "destroyed heritage". emijrp (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I see your point, however the problem lies with the fact that in many cases, a building/monument might not be listed as a heritage property when it is destroyed, and its value as 'heritage' is established after its destruction. For example, I don't think the Gourgion Tower was listed on the Antiquities List when it was demolished in 1943, but had it survived today it would have certainly been scheduled as a Grade 1 national monument and listed on the Malta's heritage register (comparable structures which still exist, such as Mamo Tower, are listed). Another example is the Bamiyan Buddhas, which were only listed as WHS after they were blown up. The destruction of six out of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World certainly qualifies as the destruction of heritage, yet there were no heritage registers at the time. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, . Essentially, the majority of destruction took place well before contemporary nation-states drew up lists in any shape or form, or had even formulated definitions of 'cultural heritage'. What that means for us is that we need to find reliable sources defining what constitutes an inanimate, physical manifestation of cultural heritage (that is, has been imbued with meaning for a culture or cultures). While, in general, articles and list should not carry disclaimers, editor discretion allows for salient explanations. As an example, see Potential superpowers. We did try to work around using the disclaimer at the top of the article, but where there is no one (or even two or three) reliable source defining a concept that is in existence, an edifying prelude can be useful. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * So, why have you added tags only to the Ukraine section? The destroyed monuments in Ukraine were registered as heritage: Statue of Lenin in Berdichev (ID is 18-104-0031), Statue of Lenin in Bila Tserkva (ID is 32-103-0093) and so on. And in some case "Police launched an investigation based on a Criminal Code article entitled "Destruction of, or Damage to, Monuments of History or Culture" as stated in sources (see Notes column). emijrp (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding Ukraine, I think it's best to sum it up as something like this: "Many communist monuments, including some which were listed on heritage registers, were removed as part of decommunization in Ukraine starting from late 2013." It would be necessary to find a source mentioning that they're registered as heritage. A similar statement could be added to the Poland section since they're about to remove (but not demolish) hundreds of Soviet monuments. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is why the list is problematic unless we can find RS (not 'many communist group' per WP:WORDS) to define objects as being 'cultural heritage' if the list name is to be changed... or even in its present state: otherwise we're contravening NOR. I could write a WP:SYNTH statement covering this as being a knee-jerk, reactionary mentality (now expressed as being enacted by law) demonstrating the growth of right wing ideology, and echoed in other ex-Soviet nation-states, and in Europe in general with the rise of hard and soft Euroscepticism of the right wing variety. This may be true, and such a description may be modified/adapted to sound encyclopaedic in tone, but it is still OR unless there are quality RS describing the destruction as such.


 * To clarify further, I've also encountered sources describing these acts of destruction as being parallel to the destruction of Nazi monuments and heritage. In Poland's case, the difference is that the monuments will be put in a monument 'graveyard'.


 * Just to make my own position clearer, I also keep my eye on articles like European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism as such topics are subject to POV pushing. The fact stands that highly emotive and politicised topics have been conflated in the mainstream (and mainstream opinion is what we, as editors on an encyclopaedic resource, are obliged to reflect). Unless we can solidly underpin the premises of this list, it will remain a precarious list ripe for POV cherry picking and COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Clearly a list article. As noted above in several ways, this entire list is problematic as it clearly lacks any precise inclusion criteria.  In the broadest sense there are probably 1000s of "built sites" that could be labeled cultural heritage over the centuries that have been "destroyed".  The wars of the 19th and 20th century destroyed untold number of sites across the globe.  Going back to the Punic Wars would add more 1000s of sites. Factoring in Manifest Destiny, Imperialism and such of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries would bring even more into play especially when you consider the cultural heritage of indigenous peoples.  I would like to see a carefully worded lead that clearly specifies inclusion criteria--addressing "What constitutes (and does not) a cultural heritage site?", "Does the method of or motive of destruction matter?",  "Does there have to be an intent to destroy cultural heritage specifically?"  "Is inclusion limited by era in which the site was destroyed?"  --Mike Cline (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is room and need for both a list-article (which this currently is) and for a proper article on the definition, types, causes of destruction of cultural heritage.  The list-article will inform the writing of the regular article.  For example the identification on the list of numerous cases of arson (including of covered bridges in the U.S.) means that an "arson" section in the regular article is probably needed.  Conversely, the development of a regular article that covers the destruction wrought by bombing during World War II, say, would suggest that leading examples in each country affected might be added to the list-article. -- do  ncr  am  15:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Re the issues of what to include, I agree with some of the above views that every entry in the list should be either listed on some kind of heritage register, or if not, it should have a reliable source describing it as cultural heritage. I just rewrote the Malta section and removed many unsourced statements (some may be added again later on if I find reliable sources). For now I only included buildings which were on the Antiquities List, but I also mentioned the Royal Opera House, which despite not being included on the list was described as "one of the major architectural and cultural projects undertaken by the British" by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage. The rest of the list would need to be rewritten and reliably sourced. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

breakout of country lists
I created and partially developed a section listing destroyed heritage in the U.S., and see already that it will need to be broken out soon, probably to List of destroyed heritage in the United States. In the U.S. much "cultural heritage" is listed in the national historic register, from which losses can be known fairly precisely, in more detail than is appropriate to include in the current list-article of world-wide scope. Only the most salient examples need be included here. I am just noting this breakout needs to be done so that others don't become concerned about the detail growing too much. Surely some other country's sections will need to be broken out, also. -- do ncr  am  19:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead section: refer to other types of damage
I was wondering about great libraries that have been destroyed, where the significance is not so much the buildings, but irreplaceable knowledge; not so much the destruction of individual documents, but the destruction of the ideas and information that the documents contained. Currently the lead says "This article mainly deals with the destruction of built heritage; the destruction of movable heritage is dealt with in Art destruction." The latter half of this sentence isn't adequate. The See also section has what I wanted, but the lead should point there. I'm not sure how to do that. Oaklandguy (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:SYN: Soviet monuments to Lenin
This text. This has been previously marked by another contributor as WP:SYN and rightly so. Here is the source. It does not mention word "heritage" anywhere. It tells about banning communist symbols and propaganda. That source - same thing, and so on. Calling this "heritage" is WP:OR. This should be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree; this appears to be original research, and is an absurd use of the word "heritage" and the concept of cultural heritage sites. --Tataral (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not any more absurd than the Taliban's destroying of the Buddha statues in Afghanistan - the Taliban (and the mainstream public there) believed that they were heretical idols and unwelcome reminders of the sinful past. They certainly didn't believe that they were "heritage". This exactly mirrors the mainstream views of Soviet monuments in Ukraine. It's the same with the Mephistopheles statue that was destroyed in Russia which is listed in the article (also no "heritage" word in the source). It is a general rule that those who destroy heritage don't consider it to be heritage. I propose using the definition in the cultural heritage article, without making judgements on the moral worth of the ideology said heritage represents: "the legacy of physical artifacts and intangible attributes of a group or society that are inherited from past generations, maintained in the present and bestowed for the benefit of future generations." - Soviet monuments clearly meet that definition, and indeed both academics and The Guardian use the word "heritage" when talking about them. Esn (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Certain Soviet monuments might be defined in sources as "heritage" sites, others do not. Ultimately, it matters how exactly each particular incident was described in majority of RS on the subject. Was it described as "banning communist symbols and propaganda", or was it described as "destruction of heritage sites" and "vandalism"? Speaking about Taliban, this is the latter. Speaking, about this thing, this is the former. At least, as far as we speak about majority of RS, such as BBC (linked to above). My very best wishes (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * But here is main problem. This page describes destruction of many really notable and important internationally recognized monuments/heritage sites, such as Buddhas of Bamiyan, Temple of Artemis, etc. Compare to them, these Lenin statues, which are arguably not even work of art, look ridiculous, no matter what numbers have been assigned to these ugly monsters by the communist or post-Soviet Ukrainian government. This is simply undue on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could add sometimes some sources to your statements, or they are just your opinions. emijrp (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The whole debate of what is "heritage" in the first place is based entirely on opinion. And the mainstream views on these matters have varied very widely across history and across different regions of the world. Esn (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Were Ukraine's communist monuments listed on a heritage register? If they were, then their destruction can be regarded as destruction of heritage. If they weren't, but there are reliable sources (which are not Russian propaganda) describing them as heritage, in my opinion they should also be included in this list. If they were not listed on heritage registers and they are not described as heritage by any reliable sources, they should not be included. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not see a single source telling that these monuments were listed on a heritage register and internationally known as heritage objects. On the other hand, a typical RS, such as that one describe this as a process of decommunization, not as a process of heritage destruction.My very best wishes (talk)
 * That is because you don't read sources you don't like what they say. emijrp (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The International Committee of the Blue Shield issued this statement. Lenin statues are in Ukrainian monuments catalogues: Statue of Lenin in Berdichev (ID 18-104-0031), Statue of Lenin in Bila Tserkva (32-103-0093), Monument to Lenin in Kramatorsk (14-129-0050)... emijrp (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is your source. Where it tells these Statues of Lenin were heritage objects? Please quote it here. As about these numbers, where they came from and what they mean? Sources please. So far this is all WP:SYN. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Here you have:


 * The IDs come from Wiki Loves Monuments database. They are added to pictures of Lenin statues in Commons, like this one File:Бердичів - Пам'ятник Леніну В. І. DSC 4600.JPG. Regards. emijrp (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So, you did not quote first source because it does not support your assertion. But instead, you quoted another source that also does not support your assertion. Just like the first source, it does not tell that monuments currently mentioned on the page are heritage objects. It only tells some of memorials to Lenin might be heritage objects . You forget to include the following in your quote : “First check whether the monument that you want to take down is a heritage site!” the organisation advises). And no, you did not provide any sources explaining what these numbers mean. Obviously, every monument has some number. My very best wishes (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep but trim. The entire Cultural Revolution, a fairly recent and massive destruction of culture and artifacts, is presented in the article in eighteen words ("During the Cultural Revolution, many artifacts, monuments, and buildings belonging to the Four Olds were attacked and destroyed."). The data discussed in this talk page section can be summarized in similar form. Randy Kryn 11:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed the destruction of historical buildings and churches by communists was usually described in sources as heritage destruction. However, destruction of monuments to Stalin (during destalinization in the Soviet Union) and more recently to Lenin usually was not. My very best wishes (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Please, this section is about Ukraine. Open a new section for Cultural Revolution. emijrp (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

"Destroyed" vs. fell to ruins
It seems there is a huge quantitative difference between taking action to destroy something, as the Taliban did to the Buddha statues in Afghanistan, and merely failing to maintain something that might have historic value. For instance, there are a bunch of wooden boats on this list. Boats have a finite life, wooden ones in particular are subject to all sorts of ravages from rot to insects to fire. It seems quantitatively different to fail to preserve something (which might be expensive, difficult or impossible to accomplish) and pro-actively destroying it.  Detroit is full of buildings that are collapsing from lack of use, maintenance and ownership. It's a terrible thing when the buildings are historic or lovely, but it's not the same as blowing up statues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As you can see from past talk page discussions, this list has been the subject of debate as being original research. Your observation adds weight to a renewed discussion over the deletion of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of destroyed heritage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://edant.clarin.com/diario/1997/06/27/e-03601d.htm
 * Replaced archive link x with https://web.archive.org/web/20131104050014/http://haiti.si.edu/ on http://haiti.si.edu/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150219092526/http://mawtani.al-shorfa.com/en_GB/articles/iii/features/2015/02/13/feature-01 to http://mawtani.al-shorfa.com/en_GB/articles/iii/features/2015/02/13/feature-01
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://minivannews.com/society/mob-storms-national-museum-destroys-buddhist-statues-a-significant-part-of-our-heritage-is-lost-now-31813
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.mepa.org.mt/file.aspx?f=2627
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.infinito.it/utenti/m/malta_mega_temples/destroy/kordina.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.infinito.it/utenti/m/malta_mega_temples/destroy/kordinb.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/fichero_articulo?codigo=2544098&orden=0
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.elmundo.es/espana/2013/12/25/52babbf4268e3e88648b458d.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Removal of Confederate Monuments in New Orleans
Someone keeps putting this in the list (along with their opinion of the situation). My thoughts are that the monuments are being removed, not destroyed. Anyone else? Bkatcher (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC


 * Removed they are, dislocated, not destroyed. Sorabino (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Were the monuments listed on heritage registers etc? If they were, has there status changed since their removal? If they were listed on such registers, they might be worth mentioning in this list (although I'm not 100% sure since they were relocated rather than destroyed). Xwejnusgozo (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Relocation is not destruction, and I note that no reliable sources discuss the move or rationale as 'destruction'. The premise of this list article was problematic from its inception, and it remains teetering on the border of WP:OR as it stands. Complex social history cannot be addressed in such a list, therefore only significantly covered, and clearly defined 'destruction' should be represented. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with your notion that the list is problematic. However, if I'm reading you right, maintaining the accuracy of the list would demand that any widely and clearly documented destruction of a Confederate monument would qualify for inclusion. Do we agree on that?--Benenglish (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. It could still be a contravention of no original research. For example, even if all of the editors paying attention to this thread were to agree that, in principle, moving the statues out of context is a broadly construed form of cultural repression/destruction, if one were to be 'damaged' inadvertently, stating that it was 'destruction' would merely be reflective of our personal point of view and WP:SYNTH. If there were single instances of 'documented' destruction (via WP:PRIMARY sources), inclusion could only be based on the analysis of the event by WP:SECONDARY sources, and even then evaluated as to whether the instance is WP:DUE. Our job, as editors, is to present content based on what mainstream reliable sources say on the matter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I added a reliable source referring to the removal of Confederate monuments as destruction of cultural heritage.


 * You keep claiming that you're adding reliable sources, as you've just done here, but a couple of news reports which provide no clear context for the broader issue are simply WP:CHERRY and WP:SYNTH. It remains WP:UNDUE for a list article unless it covers the entire context including the multitude of WP:RS (i.e., mainstream academic opinions which disagree with the concept of 'vandalism', et. al.). Taking bits and bytes of information agreeing with your own POV is not encyclopaedic. We do not accommodate lengthy content in such broad-based lists as this is not an article on the subject of the removal of Confederate monuments in New Orleans. There are numerous articles in Wikipedia on the removed articles which include the rationale for removal. Using this list as a WP:COATRACK isn't acceptable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If these sources are not sufficient than I understand removing the posted content. However, if a verifiable source from a scholar in a related field lists the vandalism of Confederate monuments as damage to cultural heritage (not their mere removal), would that be acceptable? This should be a discussion of sources, not whether you or I agree with them. In this regard, I have not seen several mainstream publications disputing the idea that vandalism is damaging cultural heritage. Additionally, even if this were true, it does not remove the ambiguity arising if other reliable sources disagree with them. So, can we at least agree, if a reliable, academic source includes vandalism of specific monuments as damaging cultural heritage, it can be included?

"For example, even if all of the editors paying attention to this thread were to agree that, in principle, moving the statues out of context is a broadly construed form of cultural repression/destruction, if one were to be 'damaged' inadvertently, stating that it was 'destruction' would merely be reflective of our personal point of view and WP:SYNTH."

The simple relocation of a statue can not be described as "destruction". Do we have instances similar to the Lenin statues, which were toppled, bulldozed, and razed to the ground by anti-communists in various countries? I haven't been paying much attention to United States-related news. Dimadick (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that the removal of statutes alone cannot be considered destruction of cultural property without a reliable source claiming so, but, yes, there have been instances of unauthorized vandalism and toppling of monuments by protestors. If this vandalism and destruction was cited as destroying cultural property by a reliable academic source, then those instances would be acceptable for inclusion on this list, correct?

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of destroyed heritage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030073844/http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/2nd_silkroad3.pdf to http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/2nd_silkroad3.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

1973 Fire at National Archives - National Personnel Records Center
I seem to be in an editing war with someone about adding information about the Fire at the NPRC in St. Louis in 1973. The referenced article clearly states that this is a loss of national heritage and and yet it is being edited out. I request it be restored. Here is the link: https://www.archives.gov/personnel-records-center/fire-1973  The last paragraph states "In terms of loss to the cultural heritage of our nation, the 1973 NPRC Fire was an unparalleled disaster...." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like you were right. I've reverted my revert. Apologies. Czolgolz (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

North Korea
What has North Korea destroyed? TempestGD (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry? If you want to read horror stories, I recommend Korean_War. United States bombing campaign destroyed "Almost every substantial building in North Korea". A North Korea section is needed, but not as you would expect. --emijrp (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Japan
I'm not sure how many RS's exist to document the extent of the loss of historic buildings and artwork that was lost, but the article lists only one 14th-century castle lost during WW2. The damage was extensive but getting old newspaper accounts together may be difficult. 50.111.7.77 (talk) 10:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that you've hit the nail on the head as to this list's fundamental flaw: there are copious numbers of events that certainly reliably sourced (although it means finding old hard copy), but we've got more little bits and pieces of WP:RECENTISM (such as this) representing long established nation-states with complex histories... just so that the name of the nation-state appears. Technically, yes it's referenced, but it's other stuff unless core, definitive examples are already in place. Okay, Wikipedia is a work in progress, but this list has been floating around with assorted bodkins added from time to time, but the structure really has to come before waiting for the filler.


 * That being said, Wikipedia requires reliable sources, and that does not mean that they have to be easily accessible in the public domain. There's a solid case for Samurai (and other military ranks) swords being confiscated and destroyed being in empathy with the title. If you have sources, and are willing to put in some time, it would be appreciated! If nothing else, it may reboot discussion because I think there are a few of us scratching our heads over how to tackle it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Kosovo
I have added some small, neutral and evidence based additions to the Kosovo section regarding Serbian cultural sites. However, my additions are being reverted due to the "POV" banner. Attacks on Serbian heritage in Kosovo have been a reality from 1999 until today. The supporting evidence provides an accurate depiction of what occurred. If anybody feels this is not the case, please add supportive evidence and edit accordingly. The previous template was not only lacking detail but also, too skewed to the Albanian cultural heritage attacks. The previous template was lacking supportive Serbian material and was actually POV supporting the Albanian heritage attacks. I have kept my addition as neutral and factual as possible and further removal without supporting evidence will be reverted. My current addition makes reference to Daesh inspired attacks in Kosovo on Serbian heritage sites, removal of this evidence based and factual addition will be considered a pro-terrorist edit TryDeletingMe (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC).
 * Your talk about "DAESH" and "pro-terrorist edit" calls into question your comments about having "added some small, neutral and evidence based additions to the Kosovo section regarding Serbian cultural sites." DAESH has existed in the middle east from the 2013-2015 period. I am yet to see news reports/evidence about that organisation being active in the Balkans by carrying out attacks on Orthodox heritage. About Orthodox heritage being destroyed after the 1999 war in Kosovo consult the book Violence Taking Place: The Architecture of the Kosovo Conflict by Andrew Herscher (2010) . He was part of the Hague war crimes investigation team and his book is based on evidence he and his team collected. Roughly two thirds of his book covers destroyed Serbian heritage. The book is neutral, scholarly and covers a lot including perpetrators, destruction etc.Resnjari (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * since you missed this, and it's relevant -- User_talk:TryDeletingMe. Mulling over the best way to handle this...--Calthinus (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The addition refers to an incident that occurred outside the Visoki Decani monastery where pro-Daesh graffiti was written, the link provided supports the claim along with the near miss terrorist incident by Islamist extremists, an event also documented by documented sources. I made no claim they are active in the Balkans so it is evident you did not even read my addition. I am yet to understand how adding further documentation of attacks backed by factual information is POV, if that is the case then I will edit the Albanian part of the text to align with the growing consensus TryDeletingMe (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding this, how are you all defining "neutral"? Have you taken the time to read WP:Neutral? Being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse. I only came across this article via WP:Huggle. I'm not interested in this topic, and I will leave this matter up to you and others to be sorted out, but I felt the need to state something. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My edit to the Albanian section has been reverted, the pro-Daesh crusaders are united. It is appalling to see double standards being applied whereby attempts to expand the section regarding Serbian heritage is being roadblocked due to "POV" banner, while attempts made to remove POV viewpoints in the Albanian section is being roadblocked due to the "neutral" banner. Yes I am aware of neutrality and hence have attempted to edit the section to appear more neutral. If the Albanian section is being promoted with in depth documentation and terms such as "ethnic cleansing" while the Serbian section is only allowed a short blurb, the current template is not neutral. If attempts are being made to hide the truth then those editors obviously have a vested interest in supporting that group of perpetrators. TryDeletingMe (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * consisting of who, you? Please, edit with your main account, please :). Anyhow, referring to myself, and/or  as "pro-Daesh crusaders" is a personal attack. Retract it in the next 24 hours or I may report, depending on how busy I am :) I mean, last I heard I was a "Zionist extremist" so clearly if I can get called a Zionist extremist and a pro-Daesh "crusader" in a month I must be doing something good, right? :) --Calthinus (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * its disappointing that you have gone down the road you have by saying "the pro-Daesh crusaders are united". You may have a viewpoint that is different to others and that's fine but saying things like that is totally uncalled for (see:wp:civil). Nonetheless the bits you deleted on Albanian heritage in Kosovo in this article are scholarship that meets Wikipedia requirements of wp:neutral and wp:reliable and do not come from tabloid media or other sources. Addressing your comments on ISIS graffiti at Visoki Decani, one, the source does NOT refer to who the perpetrators are (which you seem to be certain about) and two, the source is a speech given by a Serbian government minister to an OSCE crowd. Though i don't doubt what has been highlighted in that speech, the speech itself constitutes a wp:primary document and is not what Wikipedia uses to source its content, as (wp:secondary) is most preferred. Its why i referred you to Herscher's work. The events in the speech are from 2015, so academics would have written about such things or credible media. Source it to sources from there and first place it the Destruction of Serbian heritage in Kosovo article. This page only contains summaries of larger articles and do not list every single act, but main pages do. I hope it assists. Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Do I need to put a Balkans sanctions notice on this page? I've given TryDeletingMe another DS alert as their last one was over 12 months ago. Doug Weller  talk 12:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should.--Calthinus (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

World Trade Center
Although the 9/11 attacks were certainly a major world event, the World Trade Center was barely 40 years old at the time of its destruction. Does its loss really qualify as "destroyed heritage"? It was never considered an historic heritage structure, was it? 136.159.160.5 (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a very good question. It is arguably a heritage site now, but the issue is whether it was one at the time. I have seen the World Trade Centre mentioned in discussions of destroyed heritage sites, for example in the works of Cornelius Holtorf. To take another work, The Construction of Built Heritage: A North European Perspective on Policies explains that their indellible association with American cultural capital became their downfall. Amongst the outpouring of condemnation and painful description, there is the chilling reflection that attitudes towards heritage values may also need to be reassessed. The loss of these buildings has abruptly changed one of the most famous city skylines in the world. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The WTC had many appearances in popular culture, serving as a symbol of New York City. It was also the tallest building in the world at the time of its completion. It was much more than just a regular skyscraper even if it did not have a heritage designation but the entry has been removed with this edit; I would move for it to be reinstated. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It has now been a week and there have been no objections to my proposal so I have re-added the WTC entry. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Kosovo
I have tried to summarize in two sentences the systematic destruction of heritage through many conflicts. This is far wider than the so-called revenge attacks, as alleges in his serious POV and shameful minimization of crimes (this includes medieval monuments!). There is a wealth of evidence and relevant sources about the planned and systematic destruction of Serbian heritage. Moreover, EU Special Investigative indicated that a certain element of the KLA intentionally targeted minority populations with acts of persecution that also included desecration and destruction of churches and other religious sites. Also, I mentioned the only UNESO World Heritage Site in Kosovo, which is Serbian heritage and their inclusion in the List of World Heritage in Danger. What is so much more significant than that? Please, stop participating in the edit war and remove reliable sources without consensus at the talk page. I think two bullets need to be made, (as in the rest of the article); one about the destruction of Serbian heritage, the other about Albanian. --WEBDuB (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * First off, do not make personal attacks such as alleges in his serious POV and shameful minimization of crimes (this includes medieval monuments!). What you consider to be my POV is well-sourced to reliable scholars. In my early days on enwiki, an apparently Albanian editor posted death threats on my talk page after I agreed with a Serbian editor. The world is not merely black and white; do not assume about people who have disputes with you. Before we continue with the content, clarify what you are talking about when making this comment in your post above: remove reliable sources without consensus at the talk page? Where did I remove reliable sources without consensus on the talk page? There is no consensus for the content you added. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I offended you. As I said, I have tried to summarize with references the systematic destruction of Serbian heritage through many conflicts. That was not mentioned in any part of the paragraph! It is ridiculous to reduce this to the level of so-called revenge attacks, serious and dangerous POV. Even in the 1999 war, some scholars have similarly described the destruction of Serbian and Albanian heritage, without favoring anyone. More significantly, the Serbian heritage was destroyed in many other periods. I tried to write it in just two sentences, while part of the Albanian heritage is disproportionately longer than any other in the entire article.--WEBDuB (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is why I asked you to make a clear proposal on the talk page. You made too many changes with a single edit. First of all, I agree that the destruction of heritage did not start during the Yugoslavia period. You added a source (Mark Biondich) but did not provide its page number. Post here the page number and relevant changes can be made to the article. After this is sorted out, we can proceed with the rest of issues step by step. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * @WEBDuB, what's the page number (PS: i have said to you many times before that the page number is important.)Resnjari (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Making too many changes with a single edit" means nothing realy. It is not per any Wiki rules that I know of. I may well be wrong on this. Puting on hold vital info with proper refs. (I am sure that the page number will be added at one point) and written per NPOV on the sad events (for which we all know that are unfortunately true) is not okay on a number of levels and it smells of I just don't like it.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  23:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This not the first time @WEBDuB has not added page numbers in their edits. In some instances on other pages, the sentence added to an article purporting to claim one thing was not in the source when checked. Many of these books are 200-300 pages long and the onus does not fall on other editors to find the correct page (if it exists). At the very least provide a page number before adding content. In many articles on the Balkans a lot of topics are complicated and can ignite passions, so its important that details of the source are given. Until a page number is forthcoming for here, having that sentence in the article is POV to say the least.Resnjari (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The page number is just one of many issues, the one that is easier to solve. The addition of two pics of Serbian heritage while there is no pic of Albanian heritage is patent POV-pushing. WEBDuB criticizes the length of the part on Alb heritage, and to address that expanded the coverage of Serbian heritage to almost double the length of Alb heritage's. Not to mention the misinterpretation of two sources. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with that too. The section on Albanian heritage which i added to the article some time back is a summary after i wrote the Destruction of Alb heritage in Kosovo article. Its not long by any stretch.Resnjari (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, so the discrepancy is the problem? That is something new. UNESCO protected heritage is far more notable to be presented with a picture or two. That is me being captain obvious. Which misinterpration? Okay, so you protest because there is no page number (plus some unexplained generalisations) and yet on another article you did not see the problem with minsterpetation of sources (which was clearly explained)? I see no POV, only good contributions with sources. Some more work could be done, sure, but nothing is alarming here.  Sadkσ   (talk is cheap)  16:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * How about as a start concerns are addressed like supplying a page number for the Biondich source?Resnjari (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sadko, the sources you found are all dubious. Serbian and Albanian sources are generally very biased when such topics are touched. Biondich would be a good source. I might also find some proper sources but it might take some time. No more reverts should be made by us on the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, they are not. It is just your POV, that is clear narrative pushing (victim-agressor). This narrative is sadly the same one used by Milosevic and it's today used by most Kosovo Albanians. A number of sources are in English and not by authors from this region. Most of those references are not by Batakovic, he is the editor of the book, not the author of all the articles. All of the authors are solid historians. This just proves that you did not check the references but deleted them all the same. And no, this will not be the last edit because this is a clear case of narrative pushing on your part and edit warring as well. There were originally 5 sources provided and one of them did not not have a page number so you gave yourself the right to undo editor's work entire work.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  18:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please spare me of "I will find the refs. but it will take some time". We are not kids here. It is just another way to keep the status quo.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  18:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources for the Ottoman period and WWII were Batakovic and Samardzic.... If you can not wait me, give the page of Biondich. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Its very disappointing @Sadko. Your reason for removal for this sentence is based on your personal taste of architecture: "traditional architecture" i.e. primitive stone houses (which can be found all over the Balkans) are irrelevant and were mostly not protected as cultural heritage. . That's not a reason to remove. Look, most Albanian historical architecture in Kosovo was barely ever declared "cultural heritage" by the Yugoslav state or its successors apart from a handful of mosques. On the other stuff, if referencing is poor and its an edited book etc, etc, then reference it properly. Who authored the chapter etc. Its important to know. It it from the new batch of Serb historians post 2000, or is it from the old problematic group of which a sizable number peddled nationalism (especially in the 1980s and 1990s) etc in their works.Resnjari (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For goodness sakes people, if you want to add things, do the research and referencing properly first. Half if not all of this can be avoided. Google books and Google scholar are available for sources. Sheesh.Resnjari (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Those stone houses are simply irrelevant. Deal with it. This is why - "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. I think that an old mill in my village is cultural heritage, but it's simply not. And no, it's not about a taste but - is it that notable? The simple answer is - no, it's not. It would seem that a bunch of stone towers and houses are more important than UNESO heritage. That is not the real problem. Mediation will take place in this section, because there is no NPOV in mind here. And I will not walk away from deletion of proper sources (and there was a number of them) while ganging up and putting up "we don't agree" flag and than not explaining what is the real doubt is. There is no "group of problematic historians", it is plain nonsense. Samardzic could be problematic, but there are good sources used for the article in question. Or do you want to tell me that Albanian Nazi collaborators (a big % of Kosovo Albanians) respected other ethnic groups and their cultural heritage? Is that information not notable or not related to the territory of KO? Is that the reason why it should have no place in the article?  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  19:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yo, we are not discussing your specific village and its mill. Kosovo has Kulla (tower house) architecture and it dated from the Ottoman period. They are not some small or simple stone houses or structures. Their destruction during the 1999 war was documented later from sources that are not Albanian, nor from Kosovo or the Balkans. Another thing, i take it you have not done any reading on the subject. I wrote a whole article about it: i.e Destruction of Albanian heritage in Kosovo. On the other stuff, take the time to vet what Serb academics are used. A lot of this can be avoided. Take the time to do the research first.Resnjari (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * They are all over the Balkans (Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia etc.) and those building are not that notable. Try to be obcjetive. You (nor any other editor) for that matter has the right to play God here and judge that only sources outside of the Balkans can be used. And no, you do not get to discredit Sorbonne PhD historian and well-known author such as Dušan T. Bataković, because he was a patriot and received some criticism as being too nationalistic (which is not a conclusion by any means). His writings on World War 2 destruction of Serb churches and monasteris all over KiM is per serious sources and it is widely known. You did not answer my question - Do you want to tell me that Albanian Nazi collaborators (a big % of Kosovo Albanians) respected other ethnic groups and their cultural heritage? Is that information not notable or not related to the territory of KO? Is that the reason why it should have no place in the article? I can see that you wish to uphold the narrative in which Milosevic regime destroyed a bunch of mosques and other properties and than Albanians took revenge. Black and white story, nice. Adding that SOC churches and monasteries were destroyed before and naturally later on, simply destroys this pseudo-theory and that is why we have edit warring done by the two of you. No matter, there are other means to achieve NPOV and I will not simply watch agressive deletion of sources and this petty politician-like sort of behaviour.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  20:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You want to get into Bataković and his issues, i'm game. No one cares about his "patriotism". His problems were that his works were nationalist, which means that his patriotism got in the way of historical objectivity in his research. About tower houses, yes they are found in many places of the Balkans and to you they may mean squat, to locals of the Kosovo area, they were traditional architecture of significance. Also Milosevic did not destroy just a "bunch of mosques" as you say. Its documented what happened and the damage by Serb forces was plenty. For me to engage about WW2, your RS sources are ??? And please avoid WP:PERSONALATTACKS.Resnjari (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I just had some time to go over the recent additions . Many of the sources are ok. However a few issues remain. One Biondich has no page number. If the specific info in the book can't be located, then having it as a ref is WP:SYNTH (and original research) and should not be there. Second, is a WP:PRIMARY source of a statement by the Serb Orthodox Church and should not be there.  Otherwise one can place various direct statements and alike from religious Muslim figures on destruction of monuments in Kosovo. That could get messy. Anyway extensive WP:SECONDARY sources exist and covers that scope of content. Third, the sentence in the article talks of destruction during the Ottoman period and the Second World War. All sources attributed to that sentence do not talk about destruction in those two eras. In fact they only refer to the aftermath of the 1999 war and the events of 2004. So that part of the sentence is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and ought not to be in the article. Fourth, the B92.net. talks about an anniversary etc regarding the 2004 events. There already is a whole heap of RS which does not warrant cramming this in there as well. Fifth, there is repetition (see article sentences). Also, lot of the refs that give details about the aftermath of 1999 and the 2004 events are jammed into the first sentence, whereas they would be better suited in the following sentences which covers those things. Best.Resnjari (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree that some more tweaks are needed. I shall further work on it when I finish my RL work. Destruction of churches and mon. in Ottoman times and during WW2 on the territory of modern-day territory of Kosovo is nothing new. It is one those events which can not not be original research (basic facts), in any parallel universe. For WW2 this could be a source, an American historian using international soureces, Malocom included. His Serb roots are irrelevant here, he is an American historian. You did not get the SPC source; it is important because there is a great article written by a journalist who was in Kosovo in 1999. and there is a list of details of destroyed churches. That is good info for the subject. I shall quote only those pages, because other (letters and such) are not relevant and I agree on that. B92 could go out, there is a number of sources as it is/was. Style tweaks are in order (good point about repetition). As for Biondich I would suggest a middle solution: we know that the author, the book and the publisher are just fine, we do not have the page, okay. We could keep it untill New Year (or something like that) and if there is no page number provided, the ref. goes out. Such deals have been made before. You could help out with the sources on WW2 destructions. cheers  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  19:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , on Biondich, if a page/s can't be produced then it’s not there unless proven otherwise. It was an addition by @WEBDuB and frankly going by their past editing, there has been on more than one occasion where the added sources say nothing of the sort to what a particular article sentence claimed. I am not going to do other people's research. I do have a life. Unless you and any other person locate a specific part of the book that relates to the topic, it stays out. Second, the www.rastko.rs website republished a Carl Savich article that appeared first on Serbianna. The website is run by the Serb diaspora and caters to its needs (Nettelfield. p. 185. ). That said, it is not an RS site. On Savich, i don't really care about his ethnic background. What i do care about is the quality of his research and writings. Savich has come under stinging critique by the likes of historian Marko Hoare who has labeled him an "amateur historian" and noted many discrepancies and problems in Savich's works . The inclusion of sources from Savich in wiki articles would be problematic to say the least. Even when ones looks at the Savich article, sure he has cited a bibliography of RS, thing is he has footnoted nothing and who the heck knows whether what he wrote matches his sources, as one cannot doublecheck. On the other matter, I wasn't sure which was the SPC source you referred too, but i'm guessing that it’s the one i called a WP:PRIMARY in my previous comment. Most of the PDF document is a copy and paste of statements from the clergy etc. Even with the inclusion on one of its pages of a Fisk article, what he describes about the aftermath in 1999 has been noted in RS and covered by other scholarly sources later in time which you used. Write the section better before adding it again to the article. The bit about WW2 and the Ottoman era stays out unless you or anyone else can definitely produce sources that are RS (page numbers included). Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , this source Destruction of Kosovo's People and Heritage Under NATO's Watch is WP:PRIMARY. If you look at page 1 at the bottom it has Berkeley Kolo of Serbian- American Sisters as its ource. In works that give a full citation for it, it mentions that and also that its ultimately sourced as being a publication from the Serbian Unity Congress. This is a Serb diaspora organisation. That does not meet WP:SECONDARY by any means.Resnjari (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , why did you remove well-sourced content? The denial of the crime must be stopped, this is already too much. Serbian heritage, and even its destruction, has a far longer history in Kosovo and it is logical that it should be chronologically first. Also, there are the only UNESCO monuments, as the most significant.--WEBDuB (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Savoy Palace
I suggest that the Savoy Palace, destroyed during the Peasants' Revolt, should be added to list for the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.92.130 (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

History
The social and economic changes brought by the natives act of 1913 in South Africa 2A03:2880:31FF:77:0:0:FACE:B00C (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

not to forget
the fire that destroyed most georgian architecture in downtown toronto, resulting in a rebuild of redbrick houses with small windows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.193.14 (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing IDF destruction of Palestinian sites in Gaza
How should the destruction of sites in Gaza in Oct-Dec 2023 (as of my writing) be included? Very old and culturally significant mosques and churches, as well as museums and court buildings with historical and legal records, have been damaged and destroyed by the ongoing bombing. Cf https://www.npr.org/2023/12/03/1216200754/gaza-heritage-sites-destroyed-israel Moonspiders (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It's the kind of destruction that ought to be covered by this article. I've added a high-level figure based on the NPR story and the report. It would help helpful to pull out individual examples and add them to the article. I also think that this topic could have a standalone article which is linked to from here. I do not have the time or energy to do the topic justice at the moment. If no one else has started a page by January, I may get the ball rolling. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)
Does the bridge (recently destroyed in a boat accident) count as "heritage" for the purposes of this list? It was in a movie scene IIRC.

The Twin Towers are on this list; what makes them "heritage"? Ernest Macomb (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * All I could find was "The World Trade Center was one of the most striking American implementations of the architectural ethic of Le Corbusier and was the seminal expression of Yamasaki's gothic modernist tendencies." not that the buildings had recieved any official heritage status, won any awards, or whether the architect Minoru Yamasaki had won any awards for this design in particular. Hence I will go forth and remove them from the list. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)